Ahmanson Environmental Report Backed

In a crushing blow to opponents of the $1-billion Ahmanson Ranch housing project, a Ventura County judge on Friday ruled that the environmental impact report on the mini-city is adequate and said county officials complied with all state environmental laws in approving the development.

“The court concludes that the Ventura County Board of Supervisors did not abuse its discretion in certifying the EIR” and in approving the project, Superior Court Judge Barbara A. Lane wrote in her 55-page ruling.

Attorneys and government officials representing the nine plaintiffs who had sought to overturn the board’s 1992 approval of the project said they are confident that the case will now go to the 2nd District Court of Appeal.

“Our legal arguments have considerable merit,” said Mark Weinberger, the attorney representing the city of Malibu. “They should have been upheld by the trial court and, certainly, review by the Court of Appeal is a possibility.”

In addition to Malibu, Los Angeles County, the cities of Los Angeles and Calabasas, and several homeowner and environmental groups joined in the lawsuit against Ventura County and the Ahmanson Land Co. to block construction of the 3,050-dwelling golf course community. The Ahmanson project would be built in the rolling hills just over the Los Angeles County line from the western San Fernando Valley.

The suit contended that the development’s environmental document did not adequately address the impacts on surrounding communities. The opponents also argued that while traffic and pollution generated by the development would be felt most in Los Angeles County, Ventura County would reap most of the tax revenue and other benefits.

The suit asked the court to invalidate the county’s approval of the development and order Ahmanson to conduct a new environmental report.

“We were surprised and appalled by the ruling,” said Ken Bernstein, an aide to Los Angeles Councilwoman Laura Chick, whose district would receive the brunt of the traffic from the development.

“We feel that there were several significant issues unanswered by the EIR, in particular the potential traffic impacts on the western San Fernando Valley,” Bernstein said. “While this may be a well-designed project for Ventura County, it’s a disaster for the city of Los Angeles.”

He said Chick would be meeting with a representative of the Los Angeles city attorney’s office on Monday to discuss filing an appeal.

In her ruling, Lane wrote that in approving the project, the Ventura County supervisors decided that the prospect of receiving nearly 10,000 acres of public parklands included in the deal, combined with the project’s economic and recreational benefits, “outweighed the environmental costs.”

“It is not the proper role of the courts to substitute our judgment for that of the people and their local representatives,” Lane concluded in her ruling. “The court’s ‘limited function’ is to assure that the public and its responsible officials have been fairly informed of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. That was accomplished here.”

Ventura County Supervisor Maria VanderKolk, a key supporter of the parkland-for-development deal, said she believed that the judge’s ruling vindicated the board’s decision to approve the project.

“This was a tremendous victory for those of us who believed this was a wonderful compromise,” she said. “I always believed we did the right thing.”

VanderKolk said she was not worried about the possibility of an appeal.

“This judge could not find one thing to hang us up on, so clearly there are no glaring errors” made by the board in approving the project, she said. “Even if there is an appeal, I feel a lot better in this position.”

Steve Weston, the attorney representing Ventura County and Ahmanson, added: “I hope (the plaintiffs) will read the opinion and decide that further challenges are a waste of time and energy.”

Rosemary Woodlock, the attorney representing the environmental group Save Open Space in the lawsuit, said she is bothered by what she sees as a trend by trial court judges ruling on the side of developers.

“It’s very frustrating,” she said. “A number of environmental lawyers that I work with are very concerned that this is becoming routine. It’s very discouraging.”

Woodlock said her clients, which also include several homeowner groups, will probably appeal Lane’s decision.

While acknowledging that the plaintiffs had raised some legitimate concerns, Lane said in her ruling that many of the arguments put forth by the petitioners against the Ahmanson deal were “political, not legal.”

“The petitioners strongly disapprove of how the board weighed the evidence on the environmental benefits of 10,000 acres of public open space” versus the detriments cited by the plaintiffs, Lane wrote. “This, however, is a political judgment to be answered at the ballot box.”

The Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 to approve the Ahmanson project in December, 1992, on condition that Ahmanson Land Co. acquire and turn over to state and federal park agencies nearly 10,000 acres of mountain land, most of it owned by entertainer Bob Hope. So far, only about 3,000 acres--including Hope’s 2,308-acre Jordan Ranch--has been turned over to park agencies.

Ahmanson, which has agreed to dedicate 2,633 acres of its ranch as open space, must also deliver two other Hope properties to park agencies before it can go forward with its development. These include Hope’s 4,369-acre Runkle Ranch near Chatsworth and his 339-acre Corral Canyon tract in Malibu.

Under its agreement with the county, Ahmanson has about two years left to acquire Hope’s land. The developer, concerned about potential financial impacts from the lawsuits, had put its plans on hold until a legal settlement is reached.

Mary Trigg, a spokeswoman for Ahmanson, said the developer was pleased with the judge’s ruling and would be waiting to see if an appeal is filed before moving ahead with its plans.